[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/14/01
Time: 3:42:28 PM
Remote Name: 199.179.189.3
Jolana,
Before I try to tackle your questions let me quote a line and a paragraph from Fuhrman's book, Murder in Brentwood:
Page 181-182. "…Unfortunately, the prosecution narrowed the timeline down so tightly that they rendered some of these eyewitnesses useful only for the defense.
Marcia insisted on nailing down details she had no way of proving. When you are building a timeline for a murder, you have to remain flexible. People are often wrong or contradictory in estimating time. Their watches or clocks are set differently and their memory can be hazy. Even a coroner cannot determine the precise time of death. Investigation of stomach contents and body temperature can give you a rough estimate but not and exact time."
Here you have an expert summery of why it was important for the killer to confuse the timeline as much as possible and why he could afford to bet his life that it would work.
One of the surest ways of starting a fight, sewing confusion and creating hard feeling on this board is to start talking about the timeline. The fact is homicide detectives laugh at the mere idea of anyone being able to narrow a timeline in a murder case like the one on Bundy to within AN Hour. That's how far off witness can be in estimating time - when something started or stopped or the duration between start and stop. The more witness you have the more variation you get.
First estimates are usually the worst because most people don't have a good reason to remember the time and they use unreliable markers. For instance, I just now looked at the time on my cable converter box. It said 2:49. The last time I made a point of checking the time it was somewhere around 12:15, give or take five or ten minutes. That "give or take" gives you a spread of twenty minutes. If I had to testify to something that happened then, that's how far off I could be. If I and to testify to something that happened between 12:15 (give or take 20 minutes) I could be off by an hour or more. If I read the time incorrectly on either end, I could be off by more than that. On the other hand, I know what I did between the instance I checked the time and if I worked at it I could probably get closer to the truth, depending on what STABLE time markers I had to work with.
All of the timeline witnesses gave testimony that was consistent with the norm.
Now, for your questions:
Q: What was MF's connection to the Mezzaluna?
A: No connection was necessary, except for someone in the Brown party to "lose" Judith's glasses where they could be easily found.
Q: How did MF get witnesses to change their stories and testimonies re: what they witnessed?
A: They didn't change their testimony that much. The changes they did make were also consistent with the kinds of variations you can NORMALLY expect. The pressure to make the changes they did make came mostly form the prosecution. That, too, is what you can normally expect. Remember, the only thing he needed to sell his story (he had a few of them ready to go) was confusion. That was assured with the number of people who would be called to testify.
Q: Especially puzzling is the Browns change in what they reported. Why would Juditha Brown say she spoke to Nicole at 11, then have a different recollection and say before 10?
A: Judith's first answer was her best estimate - based on nothing that corresponds to a standard measure of time (a clock, a watch, a television program that starts or stops at a given time). Marcia Clark's timeline depended on the murders occurring between 10:15 and 10:30. Marcia had Juditha's phone records so she knew that Juditha could not have talked to Nicole at 11:00. If she had stuck with that story, the prosecution would have been stuck with two untenable choices. They could have accepted it, which would have cleared O.J. on the slot and not allowed them to get the defense to stipulate to the correctness of the record they had. Or they could have disputed it, which would have cost them a valuable timeline witness. It is clear from Marcia's questioning of Juditha that Marcia simply persuaded her that she was wrong and the prosecution was right. That sort of thing happens all the time.
Q: Fiato, Ippolitto, Debello, Sucharsky, et al. --How do these players fit in to your theory?
A: They don't, except for the obvious fact that their backgrounds are extremely useful as Red Herrings to get the defense to purse any number of drug-hit scenarios. Again, all Fuhrman needed was confusion.
Q: Have you noticed the coincidence that the two "managers" (Debello and Arbolino)who were having dinner at the Mezzaluna share the same names with a prominent Hollywood director and actor respectfully?
A: Yes I have. The name links to the movies are endless (see The Smoking Gun and The Smoking Gun 2). Debello and Arboliono are such a small part them that I didn't even include them in either book. The essential fact for me was that the killer got ALL of his idea for the killing and the framing from the movies and specific names were triggers for specific ideas. --Jasper